WALKER
v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, finding that while the motion to dismiss did not comply with the duty to confer, a drastic remedy was not warranted at this juncture.
Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against Defendants for failing to comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rule 3.01(g) regarding the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 24 (the “Motion”)). With no response necessary and after due consideration, the Motion is due to be denied.1 Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 26, 2022. (Doc. 1). Service was effectuated on January 4, 2023 (Doc. 17) making Defendants’ responsive filings due on or before January 25, 2023. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12. On January 25, 2023,
Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with the Middle District of Florida’s Duty to Confer in Good Faith. See Local Rule 3.01(g). While the Court agrees the Motion to Dismiss did not meaningfully comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) and that the Court could therefore deny the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice on such grounds, the Court believes such a drastic remedy
would be too hasty at this juncture. The underlying spirit animating the Court’s requirement that the parties confer in good faith prior to filing certain motions is the hope that the parties’ counsel will work amicably to resolve their clients’ differences and thereby, from time to time, obviate the unnecessary taxing of the Court’s time and judicial resources. Both the instant Motion and the Motion to Dismiss fail in this regard.2 Moving forward, the Court expects more cooperative
behavior from all counsel involved in this dispute; counsel’s duty to zealously advocate for one’s client need not conflict with counsel’s concomitant duties as officers of the Court. For the aforementioned reasons, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Motion (Doc. 24) is DENIED;
PAUL G.
UNITED STATES#@ISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties